Mythicism: Two Theories

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by bcedaifu »

John T wrote:
I'm still waiting for that one gem of new truth that Carrier discovered that proves the historical Jesus was all a myth.


Mark 1:1, but Carrier didn't discover it, you did. Jesus is the son of God. end of story.

John T wrote:
There are several written sources outside of the New Testament that attest to Jesus being a real person.


oops. oh?
ok, so, then, what is the "good news" in Mark? If Jesus is not the son of God, then, what is the point of Mark's gospel?

John, can we be at the same time "a real person", and also have the DNA of YHWH (or David!!)?

John, can you think of any sources outside of Roman literature, that attest to the genuineness of Herakles, as a real person? (Yes, Philo of Alexander writes about him, as a real person.)

John, when you wrote " historical Jesus was all a myth", were you being naughty? You weren't trying to slip in some kind of lawyer trick there were you?
Was Superman "all" a myth?
Was Batman "all" a myth?
What about Pierre Bezukhov?
Hikaru Genji?
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by John T »

bcedaifu wrote:John T wrote:
I'm still waiting for that one gem of new truth that Carrier discovered that proves the historical Jesus was all a myth.


Mark 1:1, but Carrier didn't discover it, you did. Jesus is the son of God. end of story.

John T wrote:
There are several written sources outside of the New Testament that attest to Jesus being a real person.


oops. oh?
ok, so, then, what is the "good news" in Mark? If Jesus is not the son of God, then, what is the point of Mark's gospel?

John, can we be at the same time "a real person", and also have the DNA of YHWH (or David!!)?

John, can you think of any sources outside of Roman literature, that attest to the genuineness of Herakles, as a real person? (Yes, Philo of Alexander writes about him, as a real person.)

John, when you wrote " historical Jesus was all a myth", were you being naughty? You weren't trying to slip in some kind of lawyer trick there were you?
Was Superman "all" a myth?
Was Batman "all" a myth?
What about Pierre Bezukhov?
Hikaru Genji?
I'm not sure how to respond. It seems that you did not understand my simple argument nor Carrier's bizarre exaggerated argument for that matter.
The good news is spelled out clearly in Romans 10:9.

Now don't get me wrong, you and Carrier don't have to believe in Romans 10:9 (just like you don't have to believe in Buddah) but that is what the first Christians (including gMark) were selling. If you can't even admit to that, then you must re-evaluate the truthfulness of your source on Christianity.

Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote:
MrMacSon wrote: This is interesting - http://ajendu.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/soteriology.html
Ptolemy I Lagi had long gone, but the cult of Serapis he created remained. The Greco reign in ancient Egypt lasted for almost 300 years until it was forcefully overthrown by the Romans. Though conquered by the Romans, the Egyptians spread their cult of Serapis and its derivatives like wild fire to Rome. It must be said that while the Romans conquered ancient Egypt militarily, the ancient Egyptians conquered Rome spiritually. When the aftershock of Serapis tsunami finally reached Rome, the indigenous pagan cult of Rome was swept into the dustbin of history. Roman elders, under Constantine, felt threatened under the invasion of a foreign cult. They quickly devised a control strategy which they found in dyophysitism. Dyophysitism is a theological doctrine that recognizes the dual nature of Christ, the divine and the human. At the council of Nicaea I, Constantine and the appointed Roman elders accepted Serapis as Christ the savior (ie. Soter Christos), with dual nature of divine and man.
Coincidentally I have just completed reading chapter 3 of Hanges' Paul the Founder where he addresses the evidence behind the various hypotheses about the origins of the Serapis (Hanges uses "Sarapis") cult and casts doubt on the common claim that it was a new religion invented by Ptolemy Soter. Apparently that claim rests largely on very late sources such as Tacitus and Plutarch and falls under suspicion of being ideologically invented as part of a propaganda war between the religious-political powers and traditions respectively based at Memphis and Alexandria.

An explanation for the Serapis cult, according to Hanges, that is consistent with what we know of cultural exchanges of the sort we see in the Hellenistic and early Roman eras and also with evidence we have from Memphis, is that it was native to Memphis but was modified, adapted, reshaped by Greek influences as devotees made their presence felt in the wider Greek world. Opposition, hostility, negotiation, compromise, rivalry, were all part of the game that was played out as it spread its influence.
The Hellenes conquer and are conquered by Egypt
The conquest of Egypt by Alexander opened a new era for the cult. In trying to find a religious cult that would unite both Egyptian and Hellenic subjects, Ptolemy Soter crafted the Isis cult as it would be introduced into Greco-Roman society. Osiris was renamed Serapis and identified with a variety of Egyptian and Hellenic gods (Osiris, Apis, Dionysus, Hades). He became a god of healing and the underworld.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/isis.php
Isis was identified with Hellenic deities such as Demeter or Aphrodite. Greek iconography was introduced to the cult which made it visually appealing to the Hellenes. In those days when the provincial city-states of the Hellenic world fell to Alexander's universal empire, the traditional gods of the city-state no longer sufficed. Gods like Isis and Serapis were not connected with any specific town and were truly universal in scope. More importantly, the exotic Egyptian mysticism could offer the Greeks of the Hellenistic age something their own gods could not - a way to cheat fate and death.

Isis and Osiris were honored by Greeks and by Egyptian emigrants as a kind of holy trinity, but always it was Isis who was the dominant member of the trio. Isis became the protector of family (especially women), the protector of newborns, the goddess of fertility and good fortune, and the goddess whose magic could cheat Fate and Death. She was also thought to be a protector of sailors, and sailors sailing from the great port of Alexandria took her cult all over the Mediterranean. Backed by the Ptolemaic regime, the new cult spread throughout the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

The Nile Flows into the Tiber
The Roman Senate was not amused with Ptolemy's attempt to craft a universal religion. When the cult of Isis swept into Rome via Hellenistic sailors and Egyptian emigrants, it became outstandingly popular with women and the lower classes, including slaves. Fearing a religious unification of the lower strata of Roman society, and fearing the loss of piety in the traditional Roman gods of the state, the Senate repeatedly placed restrictions on the new cult. Private chapels dedicated to Isis were ordered destroyed. When a Roman Consul found that the demolition team assigned to him were all members or sympathizers of the cult and refused to destroy their chapel, he had to remove his toga of state and do the deed himself.

Augustus found the cult "pornographic," though the cult was known to proscribe periods of sexual abstinence to its adherents. The real reason for Augustus' wrath was that the cult was linked to Egypt and thus the power base of his rival, Antony. Cleopatra had even gone so far to declare herself Isis reincarnated. Nonetheless, Augustus' scorn did little to stem popular opinion. Officials and servants of the imperial household were members of the cult. It seems even his own infamous daughter was a member; whether her belief was genuine or merely another aspect of her defiance against her father cannot be determined.

Tiberius, upon hearing of a sexual scandal involving the cult, had the offenders crucified and images of Isis cast into the Tiber. But much like Christianity, periodic and sporadic persecutions did nothing to stem the tide. What was death when one's deity promised salvation and resurrection?

As part of undoing the policies of Tiberius, Caligula legitimized the religion. Temples to Isis were permitted construction. Aspects of the Isiac festivals became public and part of the civil calendar (though there were still mysteries celebrated in private). It is also known that Caligula had an Egyptian chamberlain who exerted influence on the emperor and helped him progress in the mysteries of the goddess. Perhaps this even helped play a role in Caligula's infamous promotion of himself as an autocratic, Hellenistic-like ruler. Whatever the truth, Isis was now part of Roman paganism for good.

The emperor Vespasian became acquainted with the cult while serving in the Eastern legions, and seems to have adopted Isis and Serapis as his personal savior deities. Domitian owed his life to fleeing opponents in the garb of Isiac cultists, and continued the family's association with the cult.

Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were friendly to the cult, but most likely not initiates. Commodus, on the other hand, shaved his head bald like the priests of Serapis. He used to beat those around him with a mask of Anubis that was common in the processions of the cult.

Septimus Severus was fascinated with the cult, and his son Caracalla dedicated a giant temple to Serapis that rivaled the one built to Jupiter, Rome's original patron god. The meaning was clear - the gods of the East that had once been maligned by the ruling classes of the Republic were now on equal footing with the traditional gods of the State. Among the common people, they were more important.

Stoic and Neoplatonic intellectuals tried to reinterpret the cult in terms of their own highbrow philosophies, with the deities of the cult serving as metaphors for great cosmic principles. While this may have held some influence in the literate classes, its doubtful it had any impact on the vast majority of followers. To the average person Isis was not a metaphor or concept; she was as real to her followers as the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is to billions of Christians around the world today. More to the point, she performed much the same function.

The Un-Roman Roman cult
The Cult of Isis was, thanks to Ptolemy, Hellenized to a degree that the Roman mind could understand it, and yet still foreign enough to be exotic and alien.

Unlike most religious structures in the Roman world, the Iseum did not open to the streets or forum where public spectators could view the proceedings inside. The Iseum was walled off from the surrounding world, suggesting a space of inner sanctity. Even within its walls, there was a "sanctuary" much like modern monasteries where only clergy and the initiated could enter. In there rituals involving fire, water and incense were conducted in front of a sacred statuary of the deities concerned. This secret religious life that was set apart from the community and the State is what helped arouse the suspicions of the conservatives back in the days of the Republic.

Not much is known about the details of the inner workings of the mysteries, as they were by definition secret. Prospective initiates were called to the goddess by dreams and visions. Intense preparations of purification and meditation (and abstinence) were followed by exotic rites designed to recreate the myth of Isis and the resurrection of Osiris. By enduring these rituals, the adherent was reconciled to the magic of Isis and effectively granted a favorable afterlife. He or she was in a sense spiritually reborn in a manner common to Greco-Oriental savior religions.

But there were more public festivals too that didn't require initiation. The first was conducted on March 5th. In honor of Isis sailing the seas to find pieces of her lost husband, a colorful procession of costumed people, including especially sailors, marched to port and ritually blessed a boat. The second festival was held October 28th to November 3rd. This was an ancient passion play Again, costumed enactors took to the streets, this time to reenact the death and resurrection of Serapis. Roman conservatives complained the festival was too loud and colorful.

People also had private shrines to Isis and Serapis in their homes.

The subject of the ethics of the cult is a complicated one. We know that Egyptian culture as a whole was free with sexuality compared to Roman culture. Isis was in fact rather popular with courtesans and other such professions, and there are speculations that Isiac cults may have promoted a kind of "positive sexuality" among a more conservative Roman population. Augustus and Tiberius took this as proof of a "pornographic" cult. Yet the Isiac cult also demanded regular periods of sexual abstinence from its adherents for purposes of ritual purification, and even apparently courtesans readily submitted to these observances. Curiously enough, the early Christians who were quick to complain about the degeneracy of pagan cults could not offer as much criticism about Isis as they could about some other cults in the Empire.

Universal Religion
Unlike Mithraism which was confined to a small percentage of "middle class" Roman males, the Isis cult was truly universal. Unlike Mithraism it could be practiced by both men and women, and it was women who perhaps took it up most enthusiastically. Unlike Mithraism it appealed to all classes; the lower classes and slaves were the mainstay of the cult, but as we have seen even those at the very top of the social strata were also adherents. Unlike Mithraism which was mostly confined to the Latin West, Isis was honored in both halves of the empire. Isis was long honored in the Greek East, and penetrated into the Latin West in even barely Romanized areas such as Britain or northwest Gaul. Isis was however a cult of city dwellers; we see little evidence of Isiac cults in rural areas outside of her native Egypt.

There was little danger of the small cult of Mithras, influential though it was, stemming the tide of Christianity and taking over the world. However, the cult of Isis had the numbers and the appeal to mount a serious threat to Christianity. Some scholars assert that the Holy Trinity of Isis, Serapis and Horus were not really defeated - they were merely absorbed into the new Holy Trinity of Christianity. The reverence for Mary among high Christian churches is similar to faith in Isis. We should consider at the very least that many chapels to the Virgin were built purposely on the remains of temples to Isis, and that furthermore the iconography of the Madonna and Christ is quite similar to Isis and Horus.

http://www.unrv.com/culture/isis.php
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by Ulan »

John T wrote:
Ulan wrote:Furthermore, I don't know why the Inanna myth gets trotted out like this from you...
So, Ulan falls into that group that supports Carrier without even bothering to find out what he actually said.

Go it! :banghead:

John T
Back to ad hominems I see. It's pretty much the only way you manage to debate. Your use of an actual example, the Inanna myth, was pretty unusual in that you actually made a factual argument for once, even if you botched it.
No, unlike you, I actually do know what Carrier said.
"Even so, my point is not that the Christians got the idea of a crucified god from early Inanna cult. There may
have been some direct or indirect influence we cannot trace. We can’t rule that out—the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity and had entered Jewish society in pre-Christian Palestine. But we don’t know any more than that. I always caution strongly against overzealous attempts to link Christianity with prior religions." (Not the Impossible Faith, p. 18)
Which means that your whole argumentation regarding Carrier's use of the Inanna myth is way out of proportion. You can argue the use of "crucified", but that's about it. (We don't need to argue this word here again, as I agree that using the word "crucified" here is questionable, but it doesn't touch the argument he actually makes here.)

He even cautions more directly against the use of the Inanna myth as original source:
"I admit parallels like this are worth noting, but they are too little to make much of. For instance, Jonah 1:17 also
shares the three-days-and-nights motif (and Matthew 12:40 explicitly draws from it), which probably derived from a common ancient concept of death. Therefore, we needn’t imagine the Christians “got the idea” of a third-day resurrection from Inanna cult (either directly or through intervening religions), because they might have “gotten the idea” from the same cultural ideologies governing the construction of the Inanna myth (and every other myth).
So the parallels aren’t the issue.
"
Which means that he considers Jonah as a valid source for the dying/resurrection theme. So what about Inanna? He uses the Inanna example exactly for the argument I made in my last post:
"Rather, my point is that we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god. Therefore, as a matter of principle — unless Holding wants to claim that Inanna really was resurrected—it appears that people would worship a false crucified god. Therefore, Holding cannot claim this is improbable. Holding has tried to protest that Inanna wasn’t really crucified. But being humiliated by being stripped naked, killed, and nailed up in shame amounts to the same thing to any reasonable observer. The story itself emphasizes the humiliation of it."
Which means that the criterion of embarrassment fails to corroborate a historical Jesus. Forget about the "crucified" it's the "humiliation" part that's important for the point he makes. Which is the point I made that Carrier made with the Inanna myth. Which means you have proven time and again that you actually don't know what Carrier says or not.
steve43
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by steve43 »

"criterion of embarrassment"

Well, I admit, that's a new one on me. Does Carrier development a cross-cultural scale of embarrassment and apply it to different theological schemes and paradigms so this interesting factor can be quantified?

Does it work on critical scholarship texts as well?
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by Ulan »

steve43 wrote:"criterion of embarrassment"

Well, I admit, that's a new one on me.
That doesn't surprise me one bit. I guess that most people talking about Carrier don't actually know what he says.
steve43 wrote:Does Carrier development a cross-cultural scale of embarrassment and apply it to different theological schemes and paradigms so this interesting factor can be quantified?
Why should he. The criterion has been in use now in Bible scholarship for more than one hundred years.
steve43 wrote:Does it work on critical scholarship texts as well?
Well, if you feel embarrassed by his text, does it make you surer that it's a true statement of his?

This question is only half in jest. It shows how dependent on personal attitude this criterion actually is. Which is basically the next question he tackles.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by GakuseiDon »

Ulan wrote:So what about Inanna? He uses the Inanna example exactly for the argument I made in my last post:
"Rather, my point is that we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god. Therefore, as a matter of principle — unless Holding wants to claim that Inanna really was resurrected—it appears that people would worship a false crucified god. Therefore, Holding cannot claim this is improbable. Holding has tried to protest that Inanna wasn’t really crucified. But being humiliated by being stripped naked, killed, and nailed up in shame amounts to the same thing to any reasonable observer. The story itself emphasizes the humiliation of it."
Which means that the criterion of embarrassment fails to corroborate a historical Jesus. Forget about the "crucified" it's the "humiliation" part that's important for the point he makes.
Isn't the argument though that no-one would make up a story about a man who was a crucified messiah, someone who was expected to be triumphant? If so, I'm not sure that Inanna is relevant, since she was neither a man nor a messiah figure, nor was her death unexpected. (Strangely enough, Carrier does understand that there is a question about whether a dying messiah figure was unexpected as he argued the point with Thom Stark, but he doesn't reference the messiah idea in his critiques of the Criterion of Embarrassment, AFAIK.)

Looking at some quotes: Ehrman (my bolding): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-eh ... 49544.html
  • Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.
Even James Holding, to whom Carrier was responding in the quote in your post (my bolding): http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.php
  • It was recognized as early as Paul (1 Cor. 1:18; see also Heb. 12:2) that preaching a savior who underwent this disgraceful treatment was folly...

    N. T. Wright makes these points in Resurrection of the Son of God [543, 559, 563]:
    • The argument at this point proceeds in three stages. (i) Early Christianity was thoroughly messianic, shaping itself around the belief that Jesus was God's Messiah, Israel's Messiah. (ii) But Messiahship in Judaism, such as it was, never envisaged someone doing the sort of things Jesus had done, let alone suffering the fate he suffered. (iii) The historian must therefore ask why the early Christians made this claim about Jesus, and why they reordered their lives accordingly.

      Jewish beliefs about a coming Messiah, and about the deeds such a figure would be expected to accomplish, came in various shapes and sizes, but they did not include a shameful death which left the Roman empire celebrating its usual victory.
    Hengel adds: "A crucified messiah...must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish."
Whether right or wrong, the argument isn't that a god underwent a humilating death, but that a man who was claimed to be the messiah underwent a humilitating death, when this was not what was expected.

For Inanna to be an equivalent example, Carrier would need to show that her humilitating death was not expected. AFAIK Carrier does not do this anywhere.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by John T »

Ulan posted: "Your [John T] use of an actual example, the Inanna myth, was pretty unusual in that you actually made a factual argument for once, even if you botched it. No, unlike you, I actually do know what Carrier said."...Ulan

****************************

Actually, you Ulan still show you don't know what Carrier said during his lecture.
Because it was Carrier that said Inanna was "nailed up or basically crucified" (not me) yet, the myth of Inanna does not show that.

Can you focus on what Carrier actually said and not what you guess he said or meant to say?

If so, either Carrier is extremely sloppy in his research or he deliberately mislead his audience, thinking no one would bother to fact check him.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by GakuseiDon »

John T wrote:Actually, you Ulan still show you don't know what Carrier said during his lecture.
Because it was Carrier that said Inanna was "nailed up or basically crucified" (not me) yet, the myth of Inanna does not show that.

Can you focus on what Carrier actually said and not what you guess he said or meant to say?

If so, either Carrier is extremely sloppy in his research or he deliberately mislead his audience, thinking no one would bother to fact check him.
Carrier defines what he means by "crucifixion" on page 61 of OHJ, in the section where he defines his terms:
  • I shall mean by crucifixion (and 'being crucified' and all other cognate terms and phrases) as any hanging up of the living or dead as a punishment, regardless of the exact details of how. The shape of the cross or fixture, the position of the body, whether the victim is killed first or hung while alive and left to die, even the manner of hanging, whether nailing or lashing, or whether to a rock or tree or stake or doorway or anything else, all of that can (and certainly did) vary, and yet the act still constitutes crucifixion if (a) a body is hanged by anything other than a noose around the neck and (b) this hanging is a punishment. Even the ancient terminology was no more specific than that (in fact it was less so), hence I see no valid reason ours should be.8 For example, the Bible described one method of execution as to 'hang in the sun' (in the Septuagint, literally, exeliazo = ex heliou, 'out in the sun', or apenanti lou hlliou, 'against the sun'), which implies the intent was for the hanged to die from exposure (Num. 25.4 and 2 Sam. 21.6, 9, 13). That is essentially a form of crucifixion, however it was effected. Like­wise, when Joshua hung on trees the king of Ai and the kings of the Amor­ites (Josh. 8.29 and 10.26-27), and when the Law of Moses calls for the executed to be hanged on trees or planks (xu/on in the Greek) even when already dead (Deut. 21 .22-23), or when Haman and his sons are hung on a giant pole (xu/on again in Greek translations of Est. 5.14; 7.9-10; and 8.7, these are all forms of crucifixion. Many scholars of Jewish antiquity agree.

    In using the term 'crucifixion' this way I do not mean to rule out finer distinctions for those who want to make them. Someone else, for example, may want to restrict the term to an actual means of killing, thus including only those hung up alive to die, rather than the hanging of corpses. But since I see no contradiction in the idea of crucifying a corpse (and the ancient terminology does not exclude it), I think such a restriction is too fas­tidious. Since there was no standard practice of crucifixion even among the Romans (we can't be sure if everyone they crucified was nailed or merely tied up or even impaled, or exactly where or how or to what), if we are too particular we will anachronistically exceed the ideas and vocabulary of the period. The Greek word for crucify (stauroO) literally means 'staked' or 'palisaded', and frequently meant not just crucified but also impaled, or even setting up spiked walls around a fort. Hence 'to stake (stauroo) someone on a pole (xu/on)' is what happens in the early Greek translation of Est. 7.9 using the exact same verb used of the crucifixion of Jesus in the New Testament, as well as the exact same word for 'post' or 'tree' used in the Septuagint text of the old Torah Law (that passage in Deuteronomy), which is also the same word used for the cross and crucifixion of Jesus in the New Testament. Thus, as the ambiguity existed then, I preserve it myself.
Inanna qualifies as "crucified" under that definition. John T, might be best if you read Carrier and then quote him directly if you want to discuss his views.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Mythicism: Two Theories

Post by Sheshbazzar »

John T wrote: Because it was Carrier that said Inanna was "nailed up or basically crucified" (not me) yet, the myth of Inanna does not show that.
If so, either Carrier is extremely sloppy in his research or he deliberately mislead his audience, thinking no one would bother to fact check him.
Oh crap. I don't even want to do this. but it becomes necessary when sloppy lack of research and textual ignorance asserts itself.
First off the word 'crucified' derives from crucifigatur found in the Roman Latin "translations" of Greek and Hebrew texts,
as in;
' scitis quia post biduum pascha fiet et Filius hominis tradetur ut crucifigatur' (Matt 26:2)

'dicit illis Pilatus quid igitur faciam de Iesu qui dicitur Christus dicunt omnes crucifigatur ait illis praeses quid enim mali fecit at illi magis clamabant dicentes crucifigatur' (Matt 27:22-23)

'tunc dimisit illis Barabban Iesum autem flagellatum tradidit eis ut crucifigeretur ' (Matt 27:26)

'postquam autem crucifixerunt eum diviserunt vestimenta eius sortem mittentes ....' (Matt 27:35)

'tunc crucifixi sunt cum eo duo latrones unus a dextris et unus a sinistris' (Matt 27:38)

'respondens autem angelus dixit mulieribus nolite timere vos scio enim quod Iesum qui crucifixus est quaeritis' (Matt 28:5)

'Pilatus autem volens populo satisfacere dimisit illis Barabban et tradidit Iesum flagellis caesum ut crucifigeretur'' (Mark 15:15)

'et crucifigentes eum diviserunt vestimenta eius mittentes sortem super eis quis quid tolleret erat autem hora tertia et crucifixerunt eum' (Mark 15:24-25)

'Christus rex Israhel descendat nunc de cruce ut videamus et credamus et qui cum eo crucifixi erant conviciabantur ei' (Mark 15:32)

'qui dicit illis nolite expavescere Iesum quaeritis Nazarenum crucifixum surrexit non est hic ecce locus ubi posuerunt eum' (Mark 16:6)

The Roman Latin "translation". See the above words highlighted in red ? Look a bit familiar?

Now the very same texts in Greek;

λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος Τί οὐν ποιήσω Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν λέγουσιν αὐτῷ πάντες Σταυρωθήτω ὁ δὲ ἡγεμὼν ἔφη Τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν οἱ δὲ περισσῶς ἔκραζον λέγοντες Σταυρωθήτω (Matt 27:22-23)

τότε ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας παρέδωκεν ἵνα σταυρωθῇ (Matt 27:26)

σταυρώσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον ....' (Matt 27:35)

Τότε σταυροῦνται σὺν αὐτῷ δύο λῃσταί εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύμων (Matt 27:38)

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἄγγελος εἰπεν ταῖς γυναιξίν, Μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ζητεῖτε (Matt 28:5)

ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος βουλόμενος τῷ ὄχλῳ τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν καὶ παρέδωκεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας ἵνα σταυρωθῇ (Mark 15:15)

καὶ σταυρώσαντες αὐτὸν διεμερίζον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρῃ
ἦν δὲ ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν (Mark 15:24-25)

ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν (Mark 15:32)

ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠγέρθη οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν (Mark 16:6)

See the above words highlighted in red ? Do they look a familiar?
Not likely.
And most here with little or no knowledge of Greek will be at loss as how to pronounce most of them, much less be able to appreciate the inflections indicated by the varying prefixes and suffixes.
However, some may be aware though their studies that each of these are variants of the Greek terms σταυρόω 'stauroō and σταυρός 'stauros'. Not a one of them specifically means to 'crucify' by means of 'crucifixion' on a 'cross' or 'crucifix'.
that 'spin' only comes to us via way of the late Latin Vulgate's lingo, and Roman religious traditions that embrace and employ its misnomers. ...and our generally blind ignorant, gullible, and acquiescent following of Roman Catholic lingo traditions.

The latter Roman Latin translation (Vulgate) places a stress on 'de cruce' and 'crucifix' ('the Cross') and 'crucify/crucified' that is quite alien to the sense and idiomatic conveyance of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words. This fact may be observed in translations and wordings of the older pre-Vulgate Hebrew and Greek renderings;
In consideration of the (alleged) manner of death of 'Jesus of Nazareth', the 'prophecy fulfillment' text for this is;
22. And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and you hang him on a tree:
23. His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of Elohim;) that your land be not defiled, Yahweh your Elohi gives you for an inheritance. (Deut 21:22-23)

30. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30)

39. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (Acts 10:39)
_interesting these. In Deut 21:22 'he be to be put to death' is followed by 'and you hang him on a tree', and in Acts Jesus is described as 'slain' first, THEN he is 'hanged on a tree'. They were quite obviously trying to follow the order presented in Deut 21 for 'prophecy fulfillment'.
(The writers of Acts really should have informed the Gospel writers of that bit, ...or vice versa.)
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree: (Gal 3:13)
That the Latin usage sense is alien to the original sense of the Hebrew and Greek vorlage texts, is also further evidenced by the virtually complete lack of any Christian 'Cross' or 'crucifix' iconology in the Archaeological record until well into the 4th century CE, following the publication of the Vulgate 'version', and the ascendancy and influence of Roman Catholicism and the Vulgate.

In analysis of the here present controversy, the fact is that the older sense that is present in both Hebrew and Greek vorlage the stress is upon the fact of any manner of death by, or while, or even followed by 'hanging upon wood'.

Even the NT Latin Vulgate has to deal with this 'wood' thing, as in Acts 5:30
"Deus patrum nostrorum suscitavit Iesum quem vos interemistis suspendentes in ligno ."

In Acts 10:39
"et nos testes sumus omnium quae fecit in regione Iudaeorum et Hierusalem quem et occiderunt suspendentes in ligno

In Acts 13:29
"cumque consummassent omnia quae de eo scripta erant deponentes eum de ligno posuerunt in monumento"

In Gal 3:13
"Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis factus pro nobis maledictum quia scriptum est maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno "

And in 1 Peter 2:24
"qui peccata nostra ipse pertulit in corpore suo super lignum ut peccatis mortui iustitiae viveremus cuius livore sanati estis"

"in ligno", "de ligno", or 'lignum" meaning 'wood'_in any manner, shape, or form. Most certainly not specifically constrained the shape or form of a 'cross' or crucifix.

Hence any death by any mythic hero, god, or goddess that involved hanging upon wood, -before or after death-, or by piercing/dismemberment on or by means of wood, or by any implement made of wood actually IS a parallel to the requirements of the ancient Scriptural trope.
'crucifixion' upon any form of a 'cross' is in no way a necessary element in the establishing of these parallels.
Details as to the form of the death instrument, or details of the circumstances of death, is only the adding of elaboration and embellishment upon the basic theme.

All that the authentic ancient Hebrew and Greek vorlage requires, is that such death be upon, or by the means of wood. (no need of any nails or rope either) any common 'tree', or any manner of wood implement from a bare wooden 'stake' to an elaborate wooden rack as long as death is by means of, or even followed by being upon "wood".

The Latin didn't need for communication purposes, to employ the terms 'de cruce' 'crux' or 'crucifix', it was a religious selection which supported the emergent iconography and 'crucifix' icon adoration/worship which had in the 4th century CE been adapted and adopted from the Imperial cult usages by syncretizing and pandering Roman Catholicism.
Kiss the Emperors royal icon, kiss the Emperors royal @$$.

Even knowing the subject matter going in, I spent over twelve hours on the collating and composing of this post.
Cool that GakuseiDon's presentation of Carrier's explanation agrees with my own research and findings on the principal points.

Working with the actual texts beats the hell out of 'scholarship' that consist of little more than watching YouTube videos and the quote mining of assertions from authority.
.
Last edited by Sheshbazzar on Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:35 am, edited 8 times in total.
Post Reply